Legal Pot Leads to Possible Nuisance Suits, but Viability is Unlikely

by Snell & Wilmer

Almost four months into Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana for adults aged twenty-one and over, the weather is warming, windows are opening, and outdoor spaces are getting more use.  All the while, a segment of the Colorado population, especially in the City and County of Denver (“Denver”), is exercising its new-found legal right to use marijuana.[1]  A pungent plant known for its skunk-like aroma, marijuana, accompanied by its distinct scent, is poised to waft onto properties across Colorado that may find the odor less than euphoric.[2]  The issue becomes whether these Denver residents have a legal avenue to control the once contraband odors from invading their living spaces, be it an adjacent apartment, backyard, or living room.

One option for Denver residents offended by marijuana’s musk is a nuisance suit.  At the most basic level, nuisance claims are divided into public and private suits.  While citizens are free to file a civil suit for private nuisance, a public nuisance is a public offense that requires state enforcement.  See D.R.M.C. § 4-10 (describing a public nuisance under the air pollution control standards to be “unlawful”).  Therefore, a citizen of Denver seeking to vaporize the smell of marijuana at his or her residence through a public nuisance suit will need to involve the Department of Environmental Health of the City.  See id. (requiring the Department of Environmental Health of the City to investigate odor complaints).

Public Nuisance Suits:

Colorado Revised Statute section 31-15-401 affords the power to declare acts a public nuisance to municipalities under their police powers.  C.R.S. § 31-15-401.  Denver defines air pollution nuisances in two ways.[3]  D.R.M.C. § 4-10(b)(1)-(2).  Denver considers it a per se nuisance if 1) “odorous contaminants are detected when one (1) volume of the odorous air has been diluted with seven (7) or more volumes of odor-free air” or 2) the Department of Environmental Health of the City “receives five (5) or more complaints from individuals representing separate households within the city within a 12-hour period relating to a single odor description, and the [Department of Environmental Health of the City] verifies the source of the odor.”  Id.

An investigator with the Denver Department of Environmental Health has stated that neither marijuana smoking nor commercial grow facilities will reach the one-to-seven ratio for a per se violation.  Jeremy P. Meyer, When Pot Smells in Denver, the Nasal Ranger Goes in to Investigate, The Denver Post (November 11, 2013).  As for coordinated neighborhood complaints, Denver received 288 odor complaints, of which 16 related to marijuana, in all of 2012.  Id.  During the first nine months of 2013, Denver received only 85 objections to odors, of which 11 were marijuana related.  Id.  Part of this low complaint volume for marijuana odor is probably due to steps commercial grow facilities, including medical marijuana grow facilities, take to limit the odor emitted, such as the use of fans and carbon filters over exhaust vents.[4]  Id.  Even if these odor controlling mechanisms malfunction, commercial grow facilities have an affirmative defense to any public nuisance citations related to odor as long as they take steps outlined in D.R.M.C. § 4-10(c) after realizing their in-house smell has gotten out.  Additionally, smokers and growers alike may benefit from the holding in Hobbs v. Smith that “what is authorized by law cannot be a public nuisance.”  Hobbs v. Smith, 493 P.2d 1352, 1354 (Colo. 1972).

The low level of public outcry regarding offensive marijuana odors and the remote possibility for marijuana growing or smoking to violate the required one-to-seven ratio make the likelihood of numerous public nuisance claims against growers or users of marijuana in Denver is slim.  However, as 2014 is the first year for the expansion of legal use from medicinal-only to recreational as well, Denver officials will need to weather the summer months to determine if the public is truly alright with legalized cannabis consumption in Denver.[5]

Despite the low likelihood that Denver officials will be reining-in marijuana use over the following months through nuisance suits, this does not change the fact that many residents have serious concerns about marijuana smoke making its way onto their private real property.  Whether this is due to asthma, the presence of children, or a general distaste for the skunk-like smell, many people are concerned that recreational marijuana use might leave their backyards, front porches, or even living rooms unlivable due to a neighbor’s penchant for pot.  This is where the private nuisance suit comes into play.

Private Nuisance Suits:

Colorado has long recognized that “regardless of compliance with zoning ordinances or regulations, both business and residential uses may be enjoined if they constitute a nuisance to an adjoining property owner or resident.”  Hobbs, 493 P.2d at 1354.  “To maintain a successful nuisance claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant has unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of her property.”  Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Van Wyk, 27 P.3d 377, 391 (Colo. 2001).  “In making any determination of unreasonableness, the trier of fact must weigh the gravity of the harm and the utility of the conduct causing the harm.  Generally, to be unreasonable an interference must be significant enough that a normal person in the community would find it offensive, annoying, or inconvenient.”  Id.  These fact-based standards for a nuisance suit create an issue ripe for a jury’s determination.  See Miller v. Carnation Co., 516 P.2d 661, 664 (Colo. App. 1973) (overturning trial court’s acts of discharging the jury and dismissing the plaintiff’s nuisance claim at the conclusion of trial, but upholding trial court’s determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief).  Such fact-dependent issues make the ability for a defendant to succeed in a Motion to Dismiss or Motion for Summary Judgment less likely.

However, a plaintiff’s ability to prove that legal growing or smoking is ultimately unreasonable is still unlikely.  Colorado has some published judicial opinions about odors causing a nuisance.  See generally Hobbs, 493 P.2d 1352; and Miller, 516 P.2d 661.  However, these opinions do not address nuisance claims based solely on odor, but instead refer to the maintenance of an industrial chicken farm in Miller, where the owner’s refusal to adequately clean-up chicken excrement created a breeding ground for flies that caused damage to the neighbor’s house and conditions that rendered being outside rather unbearable, and the boarding of horses in a residential neighborhood in Hobbs, where, again, manure maintenance was less than stellar and resulted in flies and odors.  See Hobbs, 493 P.2d at 1353–54; Miller, 516 P.2d at 662–63.  While the Hobbs plaintiff did succeed in enjoining her neighbor from boarding a horse (Hobbs, 493 P.2d at 1355), the plaintiff in Miller lost as a matter of law regarding his claim for injunctive relief against the commercial chicken farm’s manure and fly onslaught.  Miller, 516 P.2d at 665.  Successful plaintiffs in Allison v. Smith showed that, beyond odor, the neighbors filled their property with:

“inoperable automobiles, large rigs, a bulldozer, tons of scrap metal, pipe, new and used construction materials, drums of petrochemicals, large amounts of everday litter and rubbish, and other ‘obnoxious debris’ . . . installed several above ground 2,000-gallon oil and fuel storage tanks directly uphill from the [plaintiffs’] cabin. . . . poured oil on the ground to ‘keep the dust down’ . . . [which was] carried by rain and snow melt from the [defendants’] land onto the [plaintiffs’] property, killed much vegetation on their land, entered their water well, making the water unusable . . . ”

Allison v. Smith, 695 P.2d 791, 793 (Colo. App. 1984).  All of this was in addition to “creat[ing] a persistent odor.”  Id.

Comparing the facts from these previous nuisance cases to a neighbor with six marijuana plants in a closet or a blunt on the back porch every two hours, it is hard to see success.  This is especially true because of the balancing test that requires “weigh[ing] the gravity of the harm and the utility of the conduct causing the harm.”  Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., 27 P.3d at 391.  While smoking marijuana has little, if any, social utility, a plaintiff is hard-pressed to show the harm caused, absent an asthma condition or some other health problem, that a neighbor’s marijuana consumption may aggravate.  Therefore, absent a serious health concern, plaintiffs may struggle to marshal facts that will result in a successful private nuisance claim against marijuana odors.  This leaves negotiation of marijuana use on private residential property and its effects on neighbors to be dealt with between neighbors, rather than through the legal process.  The next question becomes: can the local conflict resolution boards handle the possible torrent of tiffs between warring neighbors?  Only time will tell.

[1] This post focuses on the City and County of Denver because as of January 1, 2014, Denver maintained approximately half the recreational marijuana shops in Colorado.  Michael Martinez, 10 Things to Know about Nation’s First Recreational Marijuana Shops in Colorado, CNN (January 1, 2014).

[2] While Colorado passed Amendment 64 to its Constitution, effective January 1, 2014, legalizing recreational marijuana, Colorado has had legal medicinal marijuana since 2000, when citizens passed Section 14 of article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution.  While medical marijuana presented the same problems, passage of Amendment 64 could significantly increase the amount of marijuana used in Colorado, making the issues addressed in this article more likely to occur.

[3] The general definition of a nuisance under the D.R.M.C. governing air pollution control also contains a catch-all provision that mirrors the private nuisance claim detailed in the following section.

[4] In contrast to the lack of complaints against marijuana grow facilities, a wood-burning pizza restaurant in a Denver neighborhood received successive complaints and a citation from Denver, resulting in the installation of a system to diffuse the smoke it produced.  Jeremy P. Meyer, When Pot Smells in Denver, the Nasal Ranger Goes in to Investigate, The Denver Post (November 11, 2013).

[5] It is also important to note that Denver has a separate municipal ordinance regarding smoking or displaying marijuana in public that makes it “unlawful for any person to openly and publicly display or consume one (1) ounce or less of marijuana.”  D.R.M.C. § 38-175(b).  However, the same ordinance allows for the consumption of marijuana on “private residential property” when the person consuming is “an owner of the property, a person with a leasehold interest in the property, or has been granted express or implied permission to consume marijuana on the property by the owner or lessee.”  D.R.M.C. § 38-175(d).  This exception makes municipal enforcement of marijuana use that offends Denver citizens in their own homes unlikely to be effective in terms of protecting real property residents who find such use or smell offensive, as neighbors smoking on their own property is allowed.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Snell & Wilmer | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Snell & Wilmer

Snell & Wilmer on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.